Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 05/06/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are pending. Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5,7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites “by encoding compliance database guidelines on how to incorporate the compliant software portion in the software configuration” where “encoding” is not found in the specification. Dependent claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected for relying on the rejected independent claims 1,8, and 15 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney et al (US 20230161604 A1) hereinafter Maloney in view of Giles (US 11960880 B2) in further view of Meenal Kathiresan (US 12339765 B2) in further view of Isager (US 20190340212 A1) in further view of Winer et al. (US 20250200026 A1) hereinafter Winer in further view of Blumenthal et al. (US 20190304582 A1) hereinafter Blumenthal.
Regarding Claim 1, Maloney discloses
A system for generating alternative software configurations using advanced computational models for data analysis and automated processing, the system comprising: (Maloney [0008])
A processing device (Maloney [0219])
A non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of: (Maloney [0018])
Analyze, a software configuration to determine a non-compliant software portion, wherein the non-compliant software portion comprises a mismatch between at least the portion of the software configuration and the compliance database; (Maloney [0159] - [0160] and [0180] discloses detecting a compliance violation based on a mismatch between the software on the particular computer and the particular settings applicable to the computer. Further discloser demonstrates a difference in settings between the (non-compliant) configuration file and the particular settings. Further, [0057] discloses the package repository may be a database storing software packages. These software packages are then provided for installation or upgrade of configuration tool.
receive a compliant software portion, wherein the compliant software portion is associated with the compliance database, wherein the compliant software portion correspond to the feature missing from the software configuration; (Maloney [0151] - [0152] and [0057] discloses accessing the corresponding package from package from package repository to install a current compliant version of the particular software, where the packet repository may be a database. In this instance, the database would be supplying compliant software, thus being a compliance database).
Generate, an executable compliant software portion comprising executable code configured to bring the software configuration into compliance with the compliance database by causing the feature to be present in the software configuration (Maloney [0151]-[0153] discloses detecting a compliance violation based on a mismatch between the software on the particular computer with the particular settings and updating the computer to modify the software based on the particular settings, where the compliant version is installed on the computer and the non-compliant configuration can either be modified with the addition of new software or removal of the non-compliant software).
deploy an updated software configuration, wherein deploying the updated software configuration comprises making the compliant software portion accessible for an interaction in a production environment (Maloney [0125] and [0057] – [0058] discloses the newly reconfigured/updated file being installed on the computer).
Maloney lacks explicitly
Via an artificial intelligence model
reconfigure, using an artificial intelligence model, the software configuration to include the compliant software portion, wherein reconfiguring the software configuration comprises modifying the software configuration to comply with the compliance database; via editing executable code of the software configuration, when executed causes the disability feature to be presented to a user on a user device.
Giles teaches
Via an artificial intelligence model (Giles Column 4, Lines 59-67 and Column 9, lines 14-23, discloses using a machine learning model to generate complaint software using rules from a compliance repository).
reconfigure, using the artificial intelligence model, the software configuration to include the complaint software portion, wherein reconfiguring the software configuration comprises modifying the software configuration to comply with the compliance database via editing executable code of the software configuration, when executed causes the disability feature to be presented to a user on a user device(Giles Column 4, Lines 59-67 and Column 9, lines 14-23, discloses software remediation (reconfiguration) upon error using a machine learning model with rules from a compliance repository. Further Maloney [0037], [0043]-[0044], and [0053] discloses automatic editing/updating computer if the computer is non-compliant in order to update the configuration to be compliant, which would be adding the necessary disability feature. Thus, it would be obvious to combine Giles with Maloney to have an artificial intelligence model to aid modifying the software configuration automatically.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney to incorporate the teachings of Giles to “reconfigure, using an artificial intelligence model, the software configuration to include the complaint software portion, wherein reconfiguring the software configuration comprises modifying the software configuration to comply with the compliance database” in order to automatically correct non-compliant files with compliant portions, thus increasing overall efficiency while also decreasing down time due to non-compliant files that would have required manual intervention.
Maloney in view of Giles lacks explicitly
Using a natural language processing (NLP) engine
NLP engine determines a feature is missing from the software configuration based on the mismatch
Meenal Kathiresan teaches
Using a natural language processing (NLP) engine (Meenal Kathiresan column 15, lines 14-28 discloses using a natural language processing engine)
NLP engine determines a feature is missing from the software configuration based on the mismatch (Meenal Kathiresan column 15, lines 14-28 and column 14, lines 20-43 discloses training a machine learning model using NLP operations on software code data to indicate whether software is compliant or non-compliant. While Meenal Kathiresan lacks explicitly missing from the software configuration based on the mismatch, Maloney [0158] and [0159] discloses determining a feature missing/compliance violation based on a mismatch between the software on the particular computer and the particular settings applicable to the computer that are determined based on the configuration file. Further, Giles column 4, lines 59-67 discloses using a machine learning model to remediate one or more software compliance errors associated with a software configuration file using rules stored on compliance repository, therefore it would be obvious to combine Meenal Kathiresan with Maloney in view of Giles to teach this limitation to use an NLP engine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney in view of Giles to incorporate the teachings of Meenal Kathiresan to “Using a natural language processing (NLP) engine and NLP engine determines a disability feature is missing from the software configuration based on the mismatch” in order to use NLP operations to recognize characters, words, sentences, etc., in the software code data and organize the recognized elements for processing, thus improving the AI’s detection of compliance issues.
Maloney in view of Giles in further view of Meenal Kathiresan lacks explicitly
Wherein determining the non-compliant software configuration includes determining the non-compliant software portion contains at least a portion of software that does not comply with a compliance database containing rules that regulate software configurations in a disability context such that the software configurations are accessible by individuals with disabilities.
Disability feature
Isager teaches
Wherein determining the non-compliant software configuration includes determining the non-compliant software portion contains at least a portion of software that does not comply with a compliance database containing rules that regulate software configurations in a disability context such that the software configurations are accessible by individuals with disabilities. (Isager [0002]-[0004] and [0018] discloses remediation of website accessibility features to help users with disabilities or special needs, for example a user with a hearing disability cannot fully use a website if one or more pages of the website have accessibility issues related to sound. Remediation tools are used to identify and correct issues to be compliant with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and other standards or requirements for making content more accessible to people with disabilities).
Disability feature (Isager [0002]-[0004], [0031], and [0045]-[0046] discloses disability features missing and providing client device with different features that were identified as having issues along with a “fix” button to activate the fix to run on the client-side device to remediate the identified disability features that were missing or had an issue. Further on [0048] the remediation is pushed out live for client-side implementation for the approved fixes to the disability features.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney in view of Giles in further view of Meenal Kathiresan to incorporate the teachings of Isager to “Wherein determining the non-compliant software configuration includes determining the non-compliant software portion contains at least a portion of software that does not comply with a compliance database containing rules that regulate software configurations in a disability context such that the software configurations are accessible by individuals with disabilities” and “Disability feature” in order to allow the system to be able to determine whether code is complaint or not by using disability accessibility as the standard metric for compliance, thus providing the system with the main function/purpose of identifying non-compliant software.
Maloney in view of Giles in further view of Meenal Kathiresan in further view of Isager lacks explicitly
Wherein receiving the compliant software portion comprises using smart contracts to transmit data from the compliance database
Winer teaches
Wherein receiving the compliant software portion comprises using smart contracts to transmit data from the compliance database (Winer [0122] discloses using a smart contract to transfer data from databases).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney in view of Giles in further view of Meenal Kathiresan in further view of Isager to incorporate the teachings of Winer to “Wherein receiving the compliant software portion comprises using smart contracts to transmit data from the compliance database” in order to have direct and reliable data transfers while significantly reducing collection time for a machine learning model, as disclosed in Winer [0122].
Maloney in view of Giles in further view of Meenal Kathiresan in further view of Isager in further view of Winer lacks explicitly
Artificial intelligence model that includes a cognitive artificial intelligence model and a cognitive computing model
Blumenthal teaches
Artificial intelligence model that includes a cognitive artificial intelligence model and a cognitive computing model (Blumenthal [0013]-[0014] disclose leveraging cognitive computing techniques including NLP and machine learning and the use of cognitive AI technologies to ensure that the platform learns over time and continually improving its operations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney in view of Giles in further view of Meenal Kathiresan in further view of Isager in further view of Winer to incorporate of Blumenthal to “Artificial intelligence model that includes a cognitive artificial intelligence model and a cognitive computing model” in order to allow the AI used to be able to learn and improve continuously and thus constantly improving the effectiveness of the AI.
Regarding claim 2, Maloney in view of Giles in further view of Meenal Kathiresan
The system of claim 1,
Maloney in view of Giles in further view of Meenal Kathiresan lacks
Wherein the compliance database is associated with a disability network, and wherein the disability network creates the compliance database to provide guidelines for configuring the software configuration
Isager teaches
Wherein the compliance database is associated with a disability network, and wherein the disability network creates the compliance database to provide guidelines for configuring the software configuration (Isager [0026] discloses the creation of a code library (compliance database) that includes code fixes from accessibility consulting firms and other experts in the field (disability network). Isager [0018] discloses the remediation code portions from the database are used to identify and fix issues using Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG, the same disability network used in the specification on [0058]-[0060]). Isager [0004] - [0007] further discloses the remediation code being used to fix one or more specific remediation code portions for the remediating issues on the website.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney in view of Giles in further view of Meenal Kathiresan to incorporate the teachings of Isager to “Wherein the compliance database is associated with a disability network, and wherein the disability network creates the compliance database to provide guidelines for configuring the software configuration” in order to make guidelines of what is compliant and non-compliant of the incoming software configuration, thus aiding the system to filter and fix non-compliant software. This baseline of acceptable code helps maintain a usable system for all the users.
Regarding claim 3, Maloney discloses
The system of claim 1
Identifying, within the software configuration, the non-compliant software portion, wherein the non-compliant software portion comprises a determination that the non-compliant software portion does not match at least a portion of the compliance database. (Maloney [0159] - [0160] and [0180] discloses detecting a compliance violation based on a mismatch between the software on the particular computer and the particular settings applicable to the computer. Further discloser demonstrates a difference in settings between the (non-compliant) configuration file and the particular settings. Further, [0057] discloses the package repository may be a database storing software packages. These software packages are then provided for installation or upgrade of configuration tool).
Maloney lacks
Comparing, using the artificial intelligence model, the software configuration with the compliance database; and
Giles teaches
Comparing, using the artificial intelligence model, the software configuration with the compliance database; and (Giles Column 1, lines 55-67 and Column 2, lines 1-14 discloses first comparing the software configuration with the configuration polices stored in a configuration policy stored in the compliance repository. Giles Column 4, lines 59-67 further disclose that this compliance remediation system utilizes machine learning model)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maloney to incorporate the teachings of Giles to “Comparing, using the artificial intelligence model, the software configuration with the compliance database” in order to have automatic detection through comparison with the compliance database which allows the system to identify what is non-compliant quickly, identify what portion exactly is incorrect, and allows this portion to be fixed quickly, thus increasing overall system efficiency.
Regarding Claim 7, Maloney in view of Giles discloses
The system of claim 1
analyze the updated software configuration to determine a match between the updated software configuration and the compliance database, and (Maloney figure 7 demonstrates on step 706 the positive compliance signal. This is where [0174] where the system determines the match between the computer and the particular configuration files. Upon the determination that there is a mismatch, the step proceeds to 710 where there is a remediation to the configuration file. Once remediation is complete, the step loops back to 706 to determine if the updated software configuration is now compliant with the compliance database)
deploy the updated software configuration (Maloney [0125] and [0057] – [0058] discloses the newly reconfigured/updated file being installed on the computer).
Regarding claim 8, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney et al (US 20230161604 A1) hereinafter Maloney in view of Giles (US 11960880 B2) in further view of Meenal Kathiresan (US 12339765 B2) in further view of Isager (US 20190340212 A1) in further view of Winer et al. (US 20250200026 A1) hereinafter Winer in further view of Blumenthal et al. (US 20190304582 A1) hereinafter Blumenthal in further view of Purathepparambil et al (US 20200021620 A1) herein after Purathepparambil.
Regarding claim 5, Maloney in view of Giles in further view of Meenal Kathiresan in further view of Isager in further view of Winer in further view of Blumenthal discloses
The system of claim 1
The combination lacks explicitly
Wherein the compliance database comprises a non-sql database
Purathepparambil teaches
Wherein the compliance database comprises a non-sql database (Purathepparambil [0068] discloses a compliance database being either sql or nosql).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Purathepparambil to “wherein the compliance database comprises a non-sql database” in order to have a database that is more flexible to change rather than sql which is more structured. The non-sql database increases the systems flexibility and scalability.
Regarding claim 12, it’s directed to a medium having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 19, it’s directed to a method having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/06/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Independent claim 1, 8, and 15 recites “by encoding compliance database guidelines on how to incorporate the compliant software portion in the software configuration” where “encoding” is not found in the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Response to 103 remarks:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied or has been combined with an additional reference in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights